poor fools and their tv's. so many contradicting reports. so many false reports. you people just get knocked around and around believing everything the tv tells you. "they got him" "nevermind!" "they have a suspect, a saudi" "ok, no they don't" "CNN reporting an arrest!" "oh wait, nevermind".... LOL!

". so many contradicting reports. so many false reports. you people just get knocked around and around believing everything the tv tells you. "they got him" "nevermind!" "they have a suspect, a saudi" "ok, no they don't" "CNN reporting an arrest!" "oh wait, nevermind".... LOL!

What I do know is I prefer American TV addicts towards politically astute individuals with rotten souls.

We have yet to hear you condemn the atrocities or express any remorse for the pain of the victims. That's exactly the same attitude that creates the ideological justifications for terrorism, from the US and its enemies.

But hey, as long as you get to practice your santimonious blowhard skills all is well

Arrest the people involved and throw them in jail for the remainder of their lives without parole.

Meanwhile, the United States should take a hard look at how they approach the issue of terrorism, and their unarmed drone-strikes. I struggle with the issue, and while I don't think it's necessarily comparable to some of the acts of terror committed by other peoples against us, I think we could be setting a better example and accomplishing what we want to accomplish in a more humane way.

Again, not comparing our drone-strikes directly to some of the acts of terror committed against this country recently, but I think we should take a look in the mirror and evaluate our policy.

I'm pretty sure they know a lot more then what is being put out to be reported. Probably have a couple people already, just looking for others. LOL at those cowards not considering camera's were all over the place, thousands of people taking video's and pictures and thinking they can get away. LOL @ the dumb cowards.

Arrest the people involved and throw them in jail for the remainder of their lives without parole.

Meanwhile, the United States should take a hard look at how they approach the issue of terrorism, and their unarmed drone-strikes. I struggle with the issue, and while I don't think it's necessarily comparable to some of the acts of terror committed by other peoples against us, I think we could be setting a better example and accomplishing what we want to accomplish in a more humane way.

Again, not comparing our drone-strikes directly to some of the acts of terror committed against this country recently, but I think we should take a look in the mirror and evaluate our policy.

Sensible post, dreighver. I have problems whenever a government deprives any individual of life, liberty, or property without due process. The exception, of course, is when engaged in direct combat with an enemy during a battle. But a drone strike on someone not actually engaged in the act of attacking anyone is troubling to me. It is, in my mind, an assassination and something that conflicts with the Founders' vision of due process.

Arrest the people involved and throw them in jail for the remainder of their lives without parole.

Meanwhile, the United States should take a hard look at how they approach the issue of terrorism, and their unarmed drone-strikes. I struggle with the issue, and while I don't think it's necessarily comparable to some of the acts of terror committed by other peoples against us, I think we could be setting a better example and accomplishing what we want to accomplish in a more humane way.

Again, not comparing our drone-strikes directly to some of the acts of terror committed against this country recently, but I think we should take a look in the mirror and evaluate our policy.

Sensible post, dreighver. I have problems whenever a government deprives any individual of life, liberty, or property without due process. The exception, of course, is when engaged in direct combat with an enemy during a battle. But a drone strike on someone not actually engaged in the act of attacking anyone is troubling to me. It is, in my mind, an assassination and something that conflicts with the Founders' vision of due process.

I just have a question Pro. Most due process occurs after the fact not before. I agree that after the fact occurs due process is warrented and what happens after that due process is up for debate (in my opinion depending on the crime death is warrented), but if their is a known terrorist camp and you have enough evidence to prove they are planning an attack would you prefer them to attack first before any action is done? Or if there is a guy who snaps and starts killing people at random in a crowded area, would you wait for him to be finished to arrest him and give him due process? There are times where due process is to late and immediate action needs to be taken before lose of life occurs. Even the founding fathers understood when lives of innocents are at risk action needs to be taken to prevent that lose, hence why they allow martial law in cases that put the general populace at risk and also why we have the right to self defense if their is just cause to prevent needless deaths of innocents

Arrest the people involved and throw them in jail for the remainder of their lives without parole.

Meanwhile, the United States should take a hard look at how they approach the issue of terrorism, and their unarmed drone-strikes. I struggle with the issue, and while I don't think it's necessarily comparable to some of the acts of terror committed by other peoples against us, I think we could be setting a better example and accomplishing what we want to accomplish in a more humane way.

Again, not comparing our drone-strikes directly to some of the acts of terror committed against this country recently, but I think we should take a look in the mirror and evaluate our policy.

Sensible post, dreighver. I have problems whenever a government deprives any individual of life, liberty, or property without due process. The exception, of course, is when engaged in direct combat with an enemy during a battle. But a drone strike on someone not actually engaged in the act of attacking anyone is troubling to me. It is, in my mind, an assassination and something that conflicts with the Founders' vision of due process.

I just have a question Pro. Most due process occurs after the fact not before. I agree that after the fact occurs due process is warrented and what happens after that due process is up for debate (in my opinion depending on the crime death is warrented), but if their is a known terrorist camp and you have enough evidence to prove they are planning an attack would you prefer them to attack first before any action is done? Or if there is a guy who snaps and starts killing people at random in a crowded area, would you wait for him to be finished to arrest him and give him due process? There are times where due process is to late and immediate action needs to be taken before lose of life occurs. Even the founding fathers understood when lives of innocents are at risk action needs to be taken to prevent that lose, hence why they allow martial law in cases that put the general populace at risk and also why we have the right to self defense if their is just cause to prevent needless deaths of innocents

There's a difference between stopping someone in the actual act of committing a crime and taking so called preventive action. I think if you find a person or group you suspect of wanting to commit a crime you need to monitor what they are doing, make a case when you have evidence against them, and only make a pre-emptive strike if they move from planning to action.

Due process can take place in many ways. A warrant is due process for searching and even detaining someone and that can happen before, not after. I'd also argue that a declaration of war can be due process (though that may not be a generally accepted idea in legal circles). The basic concept though is that the government should never have the ability to act to take someone's life, liberty, or property without some clear, legally defined, and publically reviewable process. This was once a basic American principle. Sadly in my opinion it no longer is. In a certain way, the terrorists have won. They've caused Americans to abandon one of the founders' basic tenents liberty in favour of security.

Arrest the people involved and throw them in jail for the remainder of their lives without parole.

Meanwhile, the United States should take a hard look at how they approach the issue of terrorism, and their unarmed drone-strikes. I struggle with the issue, and while I don't think it's necessarily comparable to some of the acts of terror committed by other peoples against us, I think we could be setting a better example and accomplishing what we want to accomplish in a more humane way.

Again, not comparing our drone-strikes directly to some of the acts of terror committed against this country recently, but I think we should take a look in the mirror and evaluate our policy.

Sensible post, dreighver. I have problems whenever a government deprives any individual of life, liberty, or property without due process. The exception, of course, is when engaged in direct combat with an enemy during a battle. But a drone strike on someone not actually engaged in the act of attacking anyone is troubling to me. It is, in my mind, an assassination and something that conflicts with the Founders' vision of due process.

I just have a question Pro. Most due process occurs after the fact not before. I agree that after the fact occurs due process is warrented and what happens after that due process is up for debate (in my opinion depending on the crime death is warrented), but if their is a known terrorist camp and you have enough evidence to prove they are planning an attack would you prefer them to attack first before any action is done? Or if there is a guy who snaps and starts killing people at random in a crowded area, would you wait for him to be finished to arrest him and give him due process? There are times where due process is to late and immediate action needs to be taken before lose of life occurs. Even the founding fathers understood when lives of innocents are at risk action needs to be taken to prevent that lose, hence why they allow martial law in cases that put the general populace at risk and also why we have the right to self defense if their is just cause to prevent needless deaths of innocents

There's a difference between stopping someone in the actual act of committing a crime and taking so called preventive action. I think if you find a person or group you suspect of wanting to commit a crime you need to monitor what they are doing, make a case when you have evidence against them, and only make a pre-emptive strike if they move from planning to action.

Due process can take place in many ways. A warrant is due process for searching and even detaining someone and that can happen before, not after. I'd also argue that a declaration of war can be due process (though that may not be a generally accepted idea in legal circles). The basic concept though is that the government should never have the ability to act to take someone's life, liberty, or property without some clear, legally defined, and publically reviewable process. This was once a basic American principle. Sadly in my opinion it no longer is. In a certain way, the terrorists have won. They've caused Americans to abandon one of the founders' basic tenents liberty in favour of security.

But, there is an ongoing declaration of war against all terrorist orginazations going back to Tripolitan war from 1801-1805. If there is a known terrorist encampment training in the engagement of acts of war against the US and it's citizens, even if in the planning stages it's considered an act of war against the US. As such, terrorist cells in the US are an extension of that declaration of war. If they are in the US then and can be captured without risk of lose of life then I agree you bring them in, however, if they pose an immediate danger to the citizens around them immediate and lethal action is autherized and has been well before the current laws have been in place (it's considered an act of treason and subject to military law which actions can be decided by the commanding officer provided they are later found justified). In another country poses a different problem as we have no control over their legal system so it becomes a military matter not a civil one. Again if their is reasonable justification that if immediate action isn't taken the result could mean suspects escaping to commit acts against the US or it's citizens then it is considered a justifiable option to terminate those suspects. As in the Tripolitan war in which no pirates were given quarter and any vessel suspect of war against US merchants were subject to be sunk immediately if there was risk of escape without capture

Arrest the people involved and throw them in jail for the remainder of their lives without parole.

Meanwhile, the United States should take a hard look at how they approach the issue of terrorism, and their unarmed drone-strikes. I struggle with the issue, and while I don't think it's necessarily comparable to some of the acts of terror committed by other peoples against us, I think we could be setting a better example and accomplishing what we want to accomplish in a more humane way.

Again, not comparing our drone-strikes directly to some of the acts of terror committed against this country recently, but I think we should take a look in the mirror and evaluate our policy.

Sensible post, dreighver. I have problems whenever a government deprives any individual of life, liberty, or property without due process. The exception, of course, is when engaged in direct combat with an enemy during a battle. But a drone strike on someone not actually engaged in the act of attacking anyone is troubling to me. It is, in my mind, an assassination and something that conflicts with the Founders' vision of due process.

I just have a question Pro. Most due process occurs after the fact not before. I agree that after the fact occurs due process is warrented and what happens after that due process is up for debate (in my opinion depending on the crime death is warrented), but if their is a known terrorist camp and you have enough evidence to prove they are planning an attack would you prefer them to attack first before any action is done? Or if there is a guy who snaps and starts killing people at random in a crowded area, would you wait for him to be finished to arrest him and give him due process? There are times where due process is to late and immediate action needs to be taken before lose of life occurs. Even the founding fathers understood when lives of innocents are at risk action needs to be taken to prevent that lose, hence why they allow martial law in cases that put the general populace at risk and also why we have the right to self defense if their is just cause to prevent needless deaths of innocents

There's a difference between stopping someone in the actual act of committing a crime and taking so called preventive action. I think if you find a person or group you suspect of wanting to commit a crime you need to monitor what they are doing, make a case when you have evidence against them, and only make a pre-emptive strike if they move from planning to action.

Due process can take place in many ways. A warrant is due process for searching and even detaining someone and that can happen before, not after. I'd also argue that a declaration of war can be due process (though that may not be a generally accepted idea in legal circles). The basic concept though is that the government should never have the ability to act to take someone's life, liberty, or property without some clear, legally defined, and publically reviewable process. This was once a basic American principle. Sadly in my opinion it no longer is. In a certain way, the terrorists have won. They've caused Americans to abandon one of the founders' basic tenents liberty in favour of security.

But, there is an ongoing declaration of war against all terrorist orginazations going back to Tripolitan war from 1801-1805. If there is a known terrorist encampment training in the engagement of acts of war against the US and it's citizens, even if in the planning stages it's considered an act of war against the US. As such, terrorist cells in the US are an extension of that declaration of war. If they are in the US then and can be captured without risk of lose of life then I agree you bring them in, however, if they pose an immediate danger to the citizens around them immediate and lethal action is autherized and has been well before the current laws have been in place (it's considered an act of treason and subject to military law which actions can be decided by the commanding officer provided they are later found justified). In another country poses a different problem as we have no control over their legal system so it becomes a military matter not a civil one. Again if their is reasonable justification that if immediate action isn't taken the result could mean suspects escaping to commit acts against the US or it's citizens then it is considered a justifiable option to terminate those suspects. As in the Tripolitan war in which no pirates were given quarter and any vessel suspect of war against US merchants were subject to be sunk immediately if there was risk of escape without capture

That's a rather stretched interpretation of the Barbary War and congress's and the president's actions at the time. For one, no war was ever declared by the US, though it was declared by Tripoli. There is no standing declaration against "terrorist organizations" that has existed since the beginning of the 19th century. This sounds like something you'd find on redstate.com though.

That's a rather stretched interpretation of the Barbary War and congress's and the president's actions at the time. For one, no war was ever declared by the US, though it was declared by Tripoli. There is no standing declaration against "terrorist organizations" that has existed since the beginning of the 19th century. This sounds like something you'd find on redstate.com though.

There was no direct declaration of terrorism as the term did not exist back then but congress did declare that any group who takes hostile acts against the US is decidely an enemy of the US and thus subject to the laws governed during times of war. The US did not declare war but they treated these actions taken as if a declaration was given and were subject to the rules of engagment. These rules of engagement have come up in multiple incidents in US history, one more recent one was the attack on the USS Cole. After that attack, Navy saliors no longer needed the approval of the commanding officer to fire upon small boats approaching US ships as a means of defense. However, these sailors would be subject to a court of law if the firing on the ship was deemed not warrented. That's the purpose of the rules of engagement, a set of laws in place during, prior, or after actions regardless of peace time or in a state of war to regulate the approriate use of force superceeding due process if immediate attack is a possibility

That's a rather stretched interpretation of the Barbary War and congress's and the president's actions at the time. For one, no war was ever declared by the US, though it was declared by Tripoli. There is no standing declaration against "terrorist organizations" that has existed since the beginning of the 19th century. This sounds like something you'd find on redstate.com though.

There was no direct declaration of terrorism as the term did not exist back then but congress did declare that any group who takes hostile acts against the US is decidely an enemy of the US and thus subject to the laws governed during times of war. The US did not declare war but they treated these actions taken as if a declaration was given and were subject to the rules of engagment. These rules of engagement have come up in multiple incidents in US history, one more recent one was the attack on the USS Cole. After that attack, Navy saliors no longer needed the approval of the commanding officer to fire upon small boats approaching US ships as a means of defense. However, these sailors would be subject to a court of law if the firing on the ship was deemed not warrented. That's the purpose of the rules of engagement, a set of laws in place during, prior, or after actions regardless of peace time or in a state of war to regulate the approriate use of force superceeding due process if immediate attack is a possibility

Not really. Suggest you go back and read the original Congressional resolutions which are directed specifically against Tripoli and Algiers. Nonetheless, there is long standing ambiguity around the war powers, which I believe should be removed. A clear process which protects human rights and ensures proper oversight should be required whenever the government acts to take anyone's life, liberty, or property. Odd how the American right is so against goverment power when it tries to provide healthcare or some other social benefit, but wants to give it unchecked license to kill and detain people with little or no due process. Odd view of liberty if you ask me.

That's a rather stretched interpretation of the Barbary War and congress's and the president's actions at the time. For one, no war was ever declared by the US, though it was declared by Tripoli. There is no standing declaration against "terrorist organizations" that has existed since the beginning of the 19th century. This sounds like something you'd find on redstate.com though.

There was no direct declaration of terrorism as the term did not exist back then but congress did declare that any group who takes hostile acts against the US is decidely an enemy of the US and thus subject to the laws governed during times of war. The US did not declare war but they treated these actions taken as if a declaration was given and were subject to the rules of engagment. These rules of engagement have come up in multiple incidents in US history, one more recent one was the attack on the USS Cole. After that attack, Navy saliors no longer needed the approval of the commanding officer to fire upon small boats approaching US ships as a means of defense. However, these sailors would be subject to a court of law if the firing on the ship was deemed not warrented. That's the purpose of the rules of engagement, a set of laws in place during, prior, or after actions regardless of peace time or in a state of war to regulate the approriate use of force superceeding due process if immediate attack is a possibility

Not really. Suggest you go back and read the original Congressional resolutions which are directed specifically against Tripoli and Algiers. Nonetheless, there is long standing ambiguity around the war powers, which I believe should be removed. A clear process which protects human rights and ensures proper oversight should be required whenever the government acts to take anyone's life, liberty, or property. Odd how the American right is so against goverment power when it tries to provide healthcare or some other social benefit, but wants to give it unchecked license to kill and detain people with little or no due process. Odd view of liberty if you ask me.

It's hypocritical, no doubt. I also like how they love it when the gov't makes a proactive rule that's essentially tied to a civil right (gay marriage, for example), yet they love it when the gov't proactively makes a law to isolate that pocket of society.

They pick and choose where they want it applied, which is what the difference is.

I actually have voted both Dem and Republican before but I cannot vote Republican now because the party has been completley hijacked by these creepy extremists. What's even creepier is the Tea Party freaks felt it necessary to move one step to the right more, to create an offshoot party of the hijacked Republican Party.

I mean, wow.

Finally, I find it stunning that seemingly intelligent people who are Republicans, don't acknowledge this.

Feel the same Rusty. There used to be Republicans I liked (Bill Weld stands out), but those guys aren't around anymore. Of course, I'm now working on getting the vote in Canada, so maybe it won't matter as much to me personally down the road. Still, I hate to see things so screwed up in my home country, which I still love and feel pride in.

The forum title says "Patriots". If it turns out that the bombers were interested in Patriots Day because of its wingnut connections (an infamous Oklahoma City bombing, a Waco shootout with a cult) then there's a one in ten thousand chance that maybe a tinfoil hat will bomb the New England Patriots football club. Really, I don't think so. I know of a Patriot Bingo Supplies too.

That's a rather stretched interpretation of the Barbary War and congress's and the president's actions at the time. For one, no war was ever declared by the US, though it was declared by Tripoli. There is no standing declaration against "terrorist organizations" that has existed since the beginning of the 19th century. This sounds like something you'd find on redstate.com though.

There was no direct declaration of terrorism as the term did not exist back then but congress did declare that any group who takes hostile acts against the US is decidely an enemy of the US and thus subject to the laws governed during times of war. The US did not declare war but they treated these actions taken as if a declaration was given and were subject to the rules of engagment. These rules of engagement have come up in multiple incidents in US history, one more recent one was the attack on the USS Cole. After that attack, Navy saliors no longer needed the approval of the commanding officer to fire upon small boats approaching US ships as a means of defense. However, these sailors would be subject to a court of law if the firing on the ship was deemed not warrented. That's the purpose of the rules of engagement, a set of laws in place during, prior, or after actions regardless of peace time or in a state of war to regulate the approriate use of force superceeding due process if immediate attack is a possibility

try telling this to the survivors of the USS liberty. "their" country abandoned them in favor of keeping a good relationship with the terrorists.

It was an accident by democratic nation which apologize for it. Israel also paid almost 3.5 to the families, another 3.5 to the victim, and like 20 million to the United States.

Now that this piece of garbage has been caught: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boston-mit-shooting-explosion-suspect-watertown-064355149.html, let the circus begin! Whether this bum is an American citizen or not, he'll be given the rights of an American citizen, and be tried in a court of law...rather than be treated as what he is, an enemy combatant. It will be very difficult to extract any information from him as to who his buddies are, where other terrorist cells are in the States, and who was the mastermind behind this terrorist attack. After all, we can't water-board this guy. God forbid, that would be torture.

And yet...talking heads will opine...why do they hate us? What can we do to make them like us?

Folks...we can't have these type of attacks taking place in America. Job One for the federal government has always been, and should always be, to protect the citizenry. But rest assured, if this above described limp response once again wins the day, there will be many more of these type of attacks...and many more Americans will suffer the consequences.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.